Surf DEX

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the command structure and indicates the tool returns OHLCV price data. It does not disclose additional behaviors such as limitations, prerequisites, or response format, but given the annotations, this level is adequate.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is compact and well-structured: a single use case sentence followed by a parameter listing for the one command. Every element contributes to the agent's understanding, with no redundant or filler text.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple read-only tool with a single command, the description covers purpose, command, and parameter list adequately. It lacks explicit return value structure, but since there is no output schema, the mention of 'OHLCV Price' gives a hint. Minor gaps in parameter semantics and output format prevent a higher score.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema itself has zero descriptions and an unconstrained 'params' object, so the description must compensate. It lists all parameters with types and required markers: chain*, address*, interval, time_range, from, to. This is essential context beyond the empty schema. However, it doesn't explain the meaning or format of each parameter (e.g., valid interval values), so it's not fully rich.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states 'Use this when the user needs dex data from Surf' and names the command 'token-price' with its purpose 'DEX Token OHLCV Price.' This identifies the tool as a DEX data retrieval tool. It distinguishes from siblings by the specific 'dex data' domain, though it does not explicitly name sibling tools.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides a clear usage context: 'when the user needs dex data from Surf.' However, it does not mention when not to use it or suggest alternative tools like surf_exchange or surf_market for other data types, so exclusions and alternatives are absent.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.